Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 23:14:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <v62j7b$21hke$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
 <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
 <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
 <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me>
 <178edf6a7c5329df35a9af6852ecbd41c0948ea1@i2pn2.org>
 <v629mp$1s632$3@dont-email.me>
 <168858894febbaa529d1704ea864bbe15cb8f635@i2pn2.org>
 <v62bgv$1s632$6@dont-email.me>
 <df39c8964ec0606945669db5d6803fc317986709@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 06:14:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29a678b7ecb7074967021c8dcb9f1179";
	logging-data="2147982"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YCREJS6JLP/pMzTYQFVFi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:osBTG8bqWivMsnZwkoxQsq+yG+U=
In-Reply-To: <df39c8964ec0606945669db5d6803fc317986709@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3084

On 7/2/2024 11:05 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:03:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
>>>> You continue to assume that you can simply disagree with the x86
>>>> language. My memory was refreshed that called you stupid would be a
>>>> sin according to Christ.
> Better repent then.
> 
>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>> You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is incorrect
>> when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that it is
>> correct.
> What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt?
> Can you show the C code where it aborts?
> 
Yes but I won't.

>> DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
>> to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
> Aborted by HHH, so that it can return.
> 

Aborted meaning immediately stops running.

>> At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD correctly emulated
>> by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.

> Except for the outer call to HHH from main.
> 
HHH stops running after aborting its input.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer